Re: What method do *you* use for signing Usenet posts?

[deskpot@myrealbox.com (Vasily Korytov)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1220 bytes --]

>>>>> "VK" == Vasily Korytov writes:

>>>>> "asf" == Andreas Fuchs writes:
 asf> IMHO, there is no way to prefer one over the other: If there are mime
 asf> parts in the message, it should be signed as a multipart, and if there
 asf> is no mime part in it, gnus should not put one in, for size and
 asf> compatibility considerations.

 VK> Ha. Seems, you simply don't know much about ``compatibility
 VK> considerations''. Some MUAs only have the support for RFC1991, some --
 VK> only for 2015. So there's a good reason to specify it sometimes
 VK> manually.

Yeah, one thing more about ``compatibility considerations'' and ``broken
email gateways'', both mentioned by you. Well, I had a POP3 accound on
the M$ME server -- and this machine did weird things with PGP
signatures. The signed part was left, the signature was cut, the whole
former message was attached as application/ms-tnef -- having a normal
PGP-signed message on the SMTP input. So, the signatures were
practically deleted. But in RFC1991-style messages this stupid Exchange
couldn't find the text part -- and removed everything.

So, nothing is so simple. RFC1991 isn't the compatibility aid, as you
propose it to be.

---Vas

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]